Introduction

People's participation, transparency and accountability are the major areas of concern for ensuring good governance at the local level. After initiation of the new Panchayati Raj during the early nineties the local governance as a whole has got a strong impetus along with democratic decentralization, to some extent in administrative and fiscal decentralization . However, within these five decades of experiments we are yet to cover the most difficult path from representative democracy to participatory democracy. Adding to that participatory democracy is yet to work with full vigor to achieve participatory development, which the paper focuses. All stakeholders are supposed to be actively and directly be involved in the participatory development process, especially the Rural Local Self-Governments (RLGs). The Ward Members elected to the RLGs have to ensure people's participation in Gram Sabha and at the same time they have to articulate and present their need, which is their right at the Gram Panchayat meeting. They have to adept their ascribed role without fail. The whole process of participatory development is also considered as open learning for the illiterate rural poor. It is a process of learning by asserting in public meetings and doing. In India there is more space for ding so with 3.2 million people's representatives at the Village, 151412 at the intermediate and 17935 at the district level (Jayal et al 2006).

 

Participatory Development and the Space for Learning

With implementation of the Constitution's 73 rd Amendment Act, 1993 especially the 29 subjects in the 11 th Schedule and adding to that the formation of the District Planning Committees under 243 and 244 (G), bottom up planning for development has got momentum. After around one decade, the elected representatives to the Local Governments are in the process of exercising their power, rule or authority , representing territoriality here referred as their respective territorial constituencies and work for building self-sufficiency . As Dahl (1975) argues ‘politics has to involve all the above mentioned three' otherwise political decentralization that has been achieved with due representation especially from women, dalit and tribal would go in vein. So, political empowerment has to work to build economic well being not only of an individual may be it has to begin with the elected representative's family itself also of the society as a whole. However, the reality at the grass roots is different. With regard to physical and financial achievements under different development schemes funs allocation, expenditure as well as achievements is not very much encouraging.

People's direct and active participation in the local area development decision-making process aims at self-help and empowerment of the individuals as well as the institutions. It can be an end in it self or even means to an end. Through ‘agency based approach' or even ‘efficiency based approach' the participation of the rural poor especially the women, dalit and tribal communities can be ensured. The inherent hierarchies, power differentials and socio-economic disparities both within and out side the communities play a big role in bringing differentials in participation (Puri 2004). However, the elected representatives to the PRIs have keep in mind that they are elected by the constituency to think and act on behalf of them and always think good and constructive as well. At the same time they also have to overcome their own poverty otherwise thinking and acting on behalf of others may be difficult . So, data base grounding and its authentication on a regular basis with active participation from the primary stakeholders can meet the local needs with due mobilization of the internal as well as external resources would promote ownership, transparency in the system, make the development administrators accountable for their wrong doings and above all promote good governance at the grassroots.

As it is expected, the Panchayats are supposed to prepare the need based plans and work for its implementation whole-heartedly. But it is observed that the local elected representatives have little or even some times the Gram Panchayats no information base with which they can analyze the ground reality, augment the local resources and plan to meet the local needs. So, need of the hour is to prepare a simple and authentic information base, which is impossible without active involvement of the local people. The district development administration finds it easy to use the census data in its day to day development planning process, which is beyond the understanding of the illiterate, resource poor, caste and class divided lot who are always busy in mobilizing daily bread and butter. So, now to involve these rural poor generally known as the primary stakeholders in the need based local level planning and development process find it difficult to participate. At the same time the secondary stakeholders who are there to ensure participation in development such as the local development administration, PRI elected leaders and above all the NGOs and civil society have to be there to facilitate and help the primary stakeholders to take part in the development decision-making process. Does it happen anyway?

If all the stakeholders would come forward to work together then the first step should be to build the database for initiating such a process. Using the participatory learning and action or participatory development approach could be one among the most suitable approaches for the purpose. Once the first step is done successfully, it is expected that the next steps such as identifying the needs, prioritizing the needs, planning to meet the most prioritized need, monitoring the process, evaluating the change experience as well as taking up the necessary follow up activities (Fig.1).

 

Fig.1 Participatory Planning and Development Process for promoting participation in decision-making and open learning at the grassroots

The whole experience is expected to help all the stakeholders to take up new projects to meet the next prioritized need subsequently over a period of time. As pointed out in the above figure the first and foremost activity would be to prepare a participatory database grounding, which would lead for further discussion, participation and need-based decisions. In addition to adoption of Participatory Rural Appraisal or Learning (PRA/PLA) approach, adoption of the Geographic Information System (GIS) is expected to be helpful for consolidating the local situation or promoting further discussion and scientific analysis on a specific subject like watershed management. In this case it would be disastrous to completely ignore the local knowledge system and information base, which PRA/PLA upholds. Since the early 90s, participatory mapping especially in natural resource management has got momentum due to its above strength. However, in recent years changes in participatory methodologies may have been even more rapid than those in spatial technologies (Chambers 2005).

The question is ‘whether the rural poor who is handicapped with no formal education and mass poverty would benefit and subsequently be empowered with the use of GIS, or like Green Revolution the already rich, resourceful and affluent class? Ultimately who is going to own the GIS based planning, decisions and development. Rambaldi et al (2005) argument ‘PRA facilitates communication between insiders (villagers) and outsiders such as researchers, government officials etc. but places little emphasis on charting course of action that would enable ordinary people to interact efficiently with policy makers having access to GIS seems to be weak. Moreover, the E-Governance initiatives in India to improve the governance process are a welcome attempt as long as it serves the overall developmental priorities of the poorest of the poor. Because over a period of time the insiders (villagers) are hardly interested or even have little faith in the outsider's knowledge, motivation, devotion, resources and skill. Researchers ‘Lab-to-Land' has hardly succeeded in removing widespread misery, illiteracy and exploitation so building on local knowledge system with the help of participatory methods still stands tall. Thinking about development in terms of capabilities allows us to get behind the superficial indices of access and usage of technology that is often used (Madon 2004).

Ways Forward

It is a true that Doctors are not interested to go to the rural areas to serve (Maru 1985) or the Village Level Workers (VLWs) who are supposed to stay with the villagers and helping them in their endeavor are staying at the district head quarter, has become a reality. After the implementation of the Act, it was expected that there would be major paradigm shift from centralized to decentralized planning so that it could be made need based and bottom up. But even after around one decade of its initiation it is yet to be realized. Beginning from the Community Development Programme since the early fifties community or the local people who were supposed to be at the center of the whole process, however, they have been placed at the periphery. Such a process has hardly helped them to have adequate space to identify, integrate and articulate the local felt needs. The result is that the vulnerable section still struggles for mobilizing their productive assets for enhancing their income to meet their day-to-day survival needs. In all democratic politics the concept of public interest and public participation for common good play a major role (Bava 1983). The above process can work as ‘learning by doing' process.

Information regarding success or failure of any programme is considered vital for its stakeholders. From this angle the role of the Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Organization (PEOs)/Departments both at the State as well as at the Central level play a less visible role to improve the performance of the programmes in general and people's participation and ownership in particular. By taking the inherent limitations into account, Maheshwari (1985) have come forward to suggest for developing a separate administrative structure, which would exclusively deal with rural development. His argument seems to be realistic in the sense, after around three decades there is constant pressure for administrative decentralization for Rural Local Governments as a whole. Committees formed time and again to look into the irregularities and misappropriations made can have greater utility, as it has been envisaged during its formation. The reports are expected to work for correcting the anomalies that are prevalent in the system. The non-utilization of the recommendations by the Commissions has expanded over a period to increase public agony and even people tend to loose their faith from the system itself.

All authentic information is considered vital for building critical awareness and motivates anybody to participate and once the information is self or locally generated then it makes the process easier. Keeping information aloof from all the stakeholders all the time can be precarious. In this regard ‘Right to Information Act, 2005' with its provision for ‘Social Audit' is expected to play a constructive role in improving the quality of rural infrastructure building works. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 aims at providing additional employment during the lean season. In ensuring all these NGOs and civil societies do have a vital role as intermediaries. To execute public policy by a welfare state these mediating structures (Korten 1984) can play their vital role to spread the power a bit more so that the most deserving people can have control over their lives, which is known as empowerment. In the years to come the Local Governments are going to be devolved more funds, functions and functionaries. So, these tiny governments should be ready with a simple, reliable and authentic information base for further analysis and going for need-based planning and development. As per the Expert Committee Report submitted to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India in May 2005 ‘to empower the RLGs under the 11 th Five Year Plan there should be separate allocation for taking up need-based bottom-up planning .

 

References

Bava, N. (1983), Public Interest and Public Policy in R. B. Jain (ed.) Public Services in a Democratic Context , The Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, pp. 166–178.

Chambers, R. (2006), Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who Empowered and Who Disempowered? Who Gains and Who Loses? The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1-11.

Dahl, R. A. (1975), Modern Political Analysis , Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, pp. 5–13.

Jayal, N. G. and Prakash, A. et al (eds.) (2006), Local Governance in India Decentralization and Beyond , Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p. 8.

Korten, D. C. (1984), People Centered Development: Toward a Framework in David C. K and Rudi K. (ed.) People Centered Development Contributions toward Theory and Planning Frameworks , Kumarian Press, Connecticut, pp. 299–309.

Madon, S. (2004), Evaluating the Development Impact of E-Governance Initiatives: An Exploratory Framework, The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1-13.

Maddik, H. (1963), Democracy Decentralization and Development , Asia Publishing House, Bombay, p. 23.

Maheshwari, S. R. (1985), Rural Development in India A Public Policy Approach , Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Maru, R. M. (1985), Policy Formulation as Political Process – A Case Study of Health Manpower: 1949–75 in Ganapathy et al. (eds.) Public Policy and Policy Analysis in India , Sage Publications, New Delhi, p. 160.

Puri, E. (2004), Understanding Participation, Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications , Economic and Political Weekly, June 12, pp. 2511–2517.

Rambaldi, G. and Peter A. K. et al (2006), Participatory Spatial Information Management and Communication in Developing Countries , The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1-9.

It is argued by various authors including the Study by World Bank (2000) on Rural Decentralization based on five States in India that without adequate devolution of untied funds, functions and functionaries (3 Fs) to these tiny governments there is fair chance that we might be ended up with centralization than real decentralization. Adding to this a plethora of Central as well as State Government development programmes the problem has been multiplied rather with hardly any space for bottom up planning.

Both RLSGs and PRIs have been used in the article interchangeably.

Dahl (1975) argues that behaving in a particular situation is known as role. When a political system is complex and stable, political roles develop. The PRI elected representatives have to adept to their new role.

Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950) define politics as relationships involving power, rule, or authority.

Weber (1864–1920) who is considered as the most modern social scientist emphasized the territorial aspect of political association, like Aristotle he also specified that a relationship of authority or rule was one of its essential characteristics.

Aristotle (335–332 B.C) in ‘Politics' defines politics as relationships in associations capable of producing self-sufficiency.

The English News Dailies ‘The Times of India' and ‘The Hindu' on December 13, 2005 reported that ‘MPs on sale for just Rs10000, caught red handed, six from BJP, three from BSP, one each from Cong. and RJD'. When this is the case of the elected leaders to the highest Constitutional Body, thinking about representatives to the Local Governments who might have to sacrifice their daily wage for attending any meeting becomes inundated.

Report by a Special Correspondent in the English News Daily The Hindu, dated December 17, 2005 that the Appraisal Report for Career Planning and Intensive Review of the Officers Performance to be introduced, which can make bureaucracy efficient and transparent.

The Financial Express, March 29, 2006.